E.R.
t
The
recognition of foreign Governments (they now no longer recognise them as
such, but deal with them as Governments or not, as the case may be).
change in practice was announced to Parliament in April 1980 and this is the
first opportunity to make a consequential adjustment in the Rules. It is not
essential to make this change but the present gap between United Kingdom
practice and the Rules could be awkward in a particular case. As the change
is simply consequential it does not seem likely to be controversial.
(c) Work Permit Procedure (paragraph 107 of the draft Rules)
14.
In their draft report, the Rayner scrutiny team recommended that the
maximum period for which a work permit may be issued should be increased from
the present 12 months to 3 years (recommendation 15). This is a matter of
administrative convenience and not a point of substance. At a meeting with officials on 11 January, Mr Raison indicated that he was content to accept this recommendation, provided its adoption would not make it difficult to enforce recommendation 14, if that recommendation was adopted. The Secretary of State for Employment has now decided that recommendation 14 should not be accepted.
+
15. As was indicated in January, if permits are to be issued for more than 12 months, some amendment to paragraph 107 of the Immigration Rules will be
necessary. The requisite changes, which are very slight, have been included in the draft White Paper.
(d) Students (paragraphs 24 and 97 of the draft Rules)
16. The recent case of a Sri Lankan student has shown that paragraphs 24 and 97 of the Rules are defective, because a discretionary power given to an immigration officer to admit a student whose plans have not been finalised has been drafted in such a way as to require him to consider exercising his discretion, even in a case where he is not satisfied that the student will
leave at the end of his studies.
not
17. It is absolutely essential to change the Rules because an immigration officer may decide on consideration not to exercise his discretion in such a case, but it would help to reduce the scope for argument on appeal if the Rule could be amended. At this stage it is difficult to be certain about the precise amendment required because we have not yet seen a transcript of the judgment in the Alexander case. The amendments we have made in paragraphs 24 and 97 could therefore require some modification before the White Paper is sent for printing.
Transitional provisions
18. Paragraph 9 of Part I of the draft White Paper sets out the general
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.